The Federal Trade Commission will require web hosting company GoDaddy to implement a robust information security program to settle charges that the company failed to secure its website-hosting services against attacks that could harm its customers and visitors to the customers' websites.

The FTC alleges in its complaint that, since 2018, GoDaddy has failed to implement reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect and monitor its website-hosting environments for security threats, and misled customers about the extent of its data security protections on its website hosting services.

In its proposed settlement order, the FTC is requiring GoDaddy to establish a comprehensive data security program that is similar to those in other FTC cases, including the recent settlement with Marriott International.

"Millions of companies, particularly small businesses, rely on web hosting providers like GoDaddy to secure the websites that they and their customers rely on," said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The FTC is acting today to ensure that companies like GoDaddy bolster their security systems to protect consumers around the globe."

Arizona-based GoDaddy Inc. and its operating subsidiary GoDaddy.com, LLC make up one of the world's largest web hosting companies, with approximately five million web hosting customers.

GoDaddy's unreasonable security practices include failing to: inventory and manage assets and software updates; assess risks to its shared hosting services; adequately log and monitor security-related events in the hosting environment; and segment its shared hosting from less-secure environments, according to the FTC's complaint.

The FTC says that GoDaddy's data-security failures resulted in several major security breaches between 2019 and 2022 in which bad actors gained unauthorized access to customers' websites and data. These breaches exposed consumers visiting the websites to risks, including that consumers were redirected to malicious websites.

Additionally, the FTC alleges that GoDaddy misled customers, through claims on its websites and in email and social media ads, by representing that it deployed reasonable security and that it was in compliance with the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks, which require companies to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect personal information.

The FTC's proposed order will prohibit GoDaddy from misleading its customers about its security practices in the future and ensure that it has reasonable security going forward.

The order will:

• Prohibit GoDaddy from making misrepresentations about its security and the extent to which it complies with any privacy or security program sponsored by a government, self-regulatory, or standard-setting organization, including the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks;
• Require GoDaddy to establish and implement a comprehensive information-security program that protects the security, confidentiality, and integrity of its website-hosting services; and
• Mandate that GoDaddy hire an independent third-party assessor who conducts an initial and biennial review of its information-security program.

The Commission voted 5-0 to issue the administrative complaint and to accept the proposed consent agreement. Commissioner Melissa Holyoak concurred, but dissented on Count III in the complaint.

The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $51,744. The lead staff attorneys on this matter are Jarad Brown and David Walko from the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.